PEOPLE VS BARBE

FACTS:
Appellant and Jimmy were charged in an Information[4] dated 13 August 1999 with the complex crime of multiple murder
and multiple frustrated murder, the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on or about the 15th day of April, 1999 at more or less 12:30 oclock in the morning, at Sitio Santo Nio,
Barangay Liguan, Municipality of Rapu-Rapu, Province of Albay, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named [appellant and Jimmy], conspiring and confederating and acting in
concert to achieve a common purpose, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill and
committed with the qualifying circumstances of treachery (alevosia), evident premeditation, and by
means of explosion, did then and there roll and explode a hand grenade (M26-A1 Fragmentation grenade)
inside the dance area which exploded and resulted to the instantaneous deaths of the following persons
these wounds and injuries caused being fatal and mortal; and thus the above-named [appellant and Jimmy]
have already performed all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of Multiple Murder
but which nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the [appellant and
Jimmy], that is, the able and timely medical assistance given to these victims which prevented their deaths,
to the damage and prejudice of the legal heirs of those who died herein and also those who suffered injuries
on the various parts of their bodies.[16] [Emphasis supplied].
Upon arraignment,[17] appellant and Jimmy, assisted by counsels de oficio, pleaded NOT GUILTY to the crime
charged. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

As culled from the records and testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the facts of this case are as follows:

On 14 April 1999, at around 9:00 p.m., Elmer Oloroso (Elmer), one of the prosecution witnesses and first cousin of
appellant and Jimmy, was at a dancing place[18] at Sitio Sto. Nio, Liguan, Rapu-Rapu, Albay, to attend a dance held in
connection with the feast day celebration thereat. The dancing place, which was more or less ten (10) meters long and eight
(8) meters wide, was enclosed by bamboo fence and properly equipped with long benches. It was well-lighted by the
fluorescent lights surrounding it and an oscillating light located at the center thereof. While sitting on the bench inside the
dancing place, near the front gate thereof, Elmer saw appellant and Jimmy outside holding flashlights and focusing the
same toward the people inside.[19]

At around 11:00 p.m., Jimmy entered the dancing place and approached the person sitting beside Elmer. The latter
overheard Jimmy telling the person beside him to go out and look for their companions. Not long after, Jimmy went out of
the dancing place and it was the last time Elmer saw him on that particular day. [20]

Then, at around 12:00 midnight, which was already 15 April 1999, Elmer spotted appellant, who was
wearing maong pants and maong jacket with a belt bag tied around his waist, entered the dancing place and walked towards
the people who were dancing. At that time, Jimmy was no longer there. Elmer, who was only more or less three (3) meters
away from the appellant, saw the latter get a rounded object from his belt bag, which he believed to be a hand grenade as
he has previously seen one from military men when he was in Manila. Later, appellant pulled something from that rounded
object, rolled it to the ground towards the center of the dancing place where the people were dancing, and left
immediately. Five seconds thereafter, the rounded object exploded. At that moment, appellant was already one-half meter
away from the gate of the dancing place.[21]

The lights went off, people scampered away, and many died and were seriously injured as a result of the said
explosion. Elmer went out of the dancing place, together with the crowd, through the destroyed bamboo fence. Realizing
his brothers and sisters might still be inside the dancing place, Elmer went back, together with the people carrying flashlights
and torches, to look for his siblings.There he saw the lifeless body of his brother, Nicanor Oloroso (Nicanor). His other
brother, Luis Oloroso (Luis), on the other hand, was seriously injured. Elmers two other siblings, Jenny and Edwin, both
surnamed Oloroso, was slightly injured. Elmer immediately brought Luis at Bicol Regional Training and Teaching Hospital
(BRTTH), Albay Provincial Hospital, where the latter was confined for almost three months.

HELD:
Given the foregoing, it is clear that this case falls under the first clause of Article 48[80] of the Revised Penal Code
because by a single act, that of detonating an explosive device inside the dancing place, appellant committed two grave
felonies, namely, (1) murder as to the 15 persons named in the Information; and (2) attempted murder as to Purisima and
Ligaya.

Therefore, this Court holds appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of multiple murder
with double attempted murder.
 As to penalty. Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code explicitly states:

ART. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. [Emphasis supplied].

A complex crime is committed when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. Appellants
single act of detonating an explosive device may quantitatively constitute a cluster of several separate and distinct offenses,
yet these component criminal offenses should be considered only as a single crime in law on which a single penalty is
imposed because the offender was impelled by a single criminal impulse which shows his lesser degree of
perversity.[81] Thus, applying the aforesaid provision of law, the maximum penalty for the most serious crime, which is
murder, is death. Pursuant, however, to Republic Act No. 9346 which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the
appellate court properly reduced the penalty of death, which it previously imposed upon the appellant, to reclusion perpetua.